Right to privacy: Contrary verdicts raises issue of judicial

Holding that the view of smaller benches was contrary to the verdicts of larger benches, the Supreme Court today referred to a Constitutional bench the issue whether right to privacy is a fundamental right because it raises the question of "institutional integrity and judicial discipline".
A three-judge bench headed by Justice J Chelameswar agreed with the submission of Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi that an authoritative pronouncement from the bench of appropriate strength was needed as there have been inconsistent decisions.
He had cited judgements pronounced by six to eight-judge benches which had held that right to privacy is not a fundamental right and subsequently smaller benches had held a contrary view.

The bench said there appears to be "certain amount of apparent unresolved contradiction in the law" declared by the apex court and quietus has to be given to the kind of controversy raised in this batch of cases once for all.
The three judges were of the opinion that the cases on hand raise far-reaching questions of importance involving interpretation of the Constitution.
"What is at stake is the amplitude of the fundamental rights including that precious and inalienable right under Article 21.
"If the observations made in M P Sharma (supra) and Kharak Singh (supra) are to be read literally and accepted as the law of this country, the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India and more particularly right to liberty under Article 21 would be denuded of vigour and vitality.

"At the same time, we are also of the opinion that the institutional integrity and judicial discipline require that pronouncement made by larger benches of this court cannot be ignored by smaller benches without appropriately explaining the reasons for not following the pronouncements made by such larger benches," the bench said.